Thank You

Error.

It's earnings season, a time when we can discover not just how Corporate America is doing but also how well Wall Street is doing on its earnings-per-share estimates and stock ratings.

Investors can reasonably debate the accuracy of these exercises, but they can't argue about their influence on stock performance, says Kevin Matras, a vice president at Zacks Investment Research, which compiles both earnings estimates and stock ratings. A recent study Matras conducted found that stocks most analysts had upgraded appreciated an average of 50% more annually over the past 10 years than those without a rating change; they beat downgraded stocks by a factor of 10 in that time frame. The stock-rating results complemented similar findings on earnings. As the founder of Matras' firm, Len Zacks, said many years ago, "Revisions to earnings estimates are the most powerful force impacting stock prices."

The effect may last only until trumped by later revisions. But the key point is that analysts' pronouncements on profits and stocks move prices.

As a result, Zacks' (zacks.com) created its Rank No. 1 Strong Buy picks, which has returned an average of 26% annually since 1988, nearly triple the return of the S&P 500. As part of a short-term-trading advisory included in its $199-a-year premium service, Zacks assigns ranks of 1 (Strong Buy) to 5 (Strong Sell) to the 4,400 tickers tracked by 3,000 Wall Street analysts. Rankings get adjusted as new earnings-per-share estimates and recommendations are released.

Revisions have been flying fast and furious in the run-up to fourth-quarter earnings calls. But they can be tricky to interpret. Researchers use different analytical schemata and often issue ambiguous pronouncements like Underweight, Near-Term Neutral, or Accumulate.

It's up to third-party tracking firms like FactSet, Briefing.com, and Thomson/First Call to translate these shadings into more definitive Buy, Sell, or Hold equivalents, which then get widely disseminated for free on sites like Reuters (reuters.com) or Yahoo Finance (finance.yahoo.com). Both provide voluminous detail on analyst revisions over a variety of time periods.

Many investors skip over the confusing details to focus on the tracking firms' "consensus" calculations. As always, beware the consensus, warns StarMine (starmine.com), a firm that researches analyst calls and performance. A consensus will be either a mathematical mean or median that obscures both the age of the estimates included and the batting averages of the analysts, explains Tim Gaumer, StarMine's director of fundamental research. By definition, most stock calls are off the mark and might even cancel one another out.

Next day, VLO reported a 2,144% increase in fourth-quarter net income, and its $1.82 in earnings per share blew away the $1.18 consensus. The stock gapped up $4.96, or 13%, to close at $43.77, surpassing the $42 consensus target price. Oops.

Analysts obviously make mistakes, but they have a tough job. They have to guesstimate dozens of financial values for each of dozens of companies months or years before the actual numbers arrive.

The magnitude and direction of estimate revisions may be the best stars for the average investor to steer by, says Gaumer. But yes, some analysts consistently outperform their peers, and it's Gaumer's job to find them. He oversees a detailed analysis of Wall Street research performance sold to StarMine's institutional clients at institutional prices.

The names of the top three stock pickers and earnings forecasters by year, region, and industry are published for free in searchable tables on one of StarMine's Websites (excellence.thomsonreuters.com/award/starmine). Visitors can also find the top investment banks.